No Subject

And it is needless overhead since it is hard to have a simple setting that
says "oh, bring up the second channel if the traffic reaches level X".

Yes, I think we should do BACP too.  But I think it is wasteful for most
applications.

And, to be fair, MP+ is an Informational RFC, not a standard.  Anyone can
write an informational RFC.  I could write on to describe the high-water
mark system, but I think that would be silly.

-MZ
--
Livingston Enterprises - Chair, Department of Interstitial Affairs
Phone: 800-458-9966 510-737-2100 FAX: 510-737-2110 megazone@livingston.com
For support requests: support@livingston.com  &lt;<A HREF="http://www.livingston.com/">http://www.livingston.com/</A>&gt; 
Snail mail: 4464 Willow Road, Pleasanton, CA 94588

++ Ascend Users Mailing List ++
To unsubscribe:	send unsubscribe to ascend-users-request@bungi.com
To get FAQ'd:	&lt;<A HREF="http://www.nealis.net/ascend/faq">http://www.nealis.net/ascend/faq</A>&gt;

</PRE>
<!--X-MsgBody-End-->
<!--X-Follow-Ups-->
<HR>
<STRONG>Follow-Ups</STRONG>:
<UL>
<LI><STRONG><A HREF="msg08817.html">Re: (ASCEND) Inter operability &amp; BACP,DBA,BOD et. al. (fwd)</A></STRONG></LI>
<UL>
<LI><EM>From</EM>: Kevin Smith &lt;kevin@ascend.com&gt;</LI>
</UL>
</UL>
<!--X-Follow-Ups-End-->
<!--X-References-->
<!--X-References-End-->
<!--X-BotPNI-->
<HR>
<UL>
<LI>Prev by Date:
<STRONG><A HREF="msg08769.html">(ASCEND) Multi-IP NAT (fwd)</A></STRONG>
</LI>
<LI>Next by Date:
<STRONG><A HREF="msg08770.html">Re: (ASCEND) MAX stacking (fwd)</A></STRONG>
</LI>
<LI>Prev by thread:
<STRONG><A HREF="msg08770.html">Re: (ASCEND) MAX stacking (fwd)</A></STRONG>
</LI>
<LI>Next by thread:
<STRONG><A HREF="msg08817.html">Re: (ASCEND) Inter operability &amp; BACP,DBA,BOD et. al. (fwd)</A></STRONG>
</LI>
<LI>Index(es):
<UL>
<LI><A HREF="mail5.html#08768"><STRONG>Main</STRONG></A></LI>
<LI><A HREF="thrd166.html#08768"><STRONG>Thread</STRONG></A></LI>
</UL>
</LI>
</UL>

<!--X-BotPNI-End-->
<!--X-User-Footer-->
<!--X-User-Footer-End-->
</BODY>
</HTML>